Item 2A-Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

an alternative path to allow developers to be creative and intuitive. She noted that PDD had asserted it did not have money to develop this "alternative path." Mr. Pap6 asked what was meant by the provision of a framework for "bounded delegation." Mr. Coyle replied that certain activities, projects, or standards different from the code could be approved if a series of standards were prescribed at the front end. He called it a level of flexibility at the edges of the code. He asserted it would allow the person at the front counter a certain level of creativity. Mr. Pap6 supported simplifying the process. He cited a city in California wherein a procedure was set up so that everyone acting on a permit sat at a table together and worked the kinks out of the proposal. He felt this resulted in better submittals. Mayor Torrey liked the recommendation. He predicted that there was a lot of work to be done on it while the council was on break. He felt that what was needed, more than anything else, was the ability to provide predictability to the people who bring their businesses to Eugene. He said the standpoint of the small person who wanted to add something on in the backyard was that the process was frustrating and often it was simpler to build things without permits. He noted that people sometimes opined that the Mayor could build a brick fence and others could not, but the truth of it was that he had built his brick fence five years ago, prior to changes in the code that precluded the building of such walls. He thought companies who did not have the ability or finances to address some of the land use issues in Eugene fled to Springfield. He opined that the cleaner and more predictable the code could be made, the better off the community would be. Mr. Kelly agreed there was room for improvement in the current code. He recalled that he had attended several sessions at the recent American Planners Association conference on form-based codes and other non-Euclidean constructs. He said, given the opportunity, he would support this. He asserted, however, that the staff motion did not express these ideas. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Coyle opined the "alternate path" idea would not speak to any of the principles that were being set forth. He called it a major zoning administration question. He asserted that undertaking a performance-based zone at this time would be a complete overhaul of the code. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion at what the "alternate path" would do. Mr. Coyle replied that it would add 20 percent more predictability to the adjustment review process. Mr. Kelly requested a work session on the "alternate path," adding that he did not think the staff activity reflected the council's direction. Ms. Nathanson recognized that the council would not likely take action at the present work session. She wished to convey, nonetheless, her suggestion for a change in the wording of the second revised staff motion so that it would read, as follows: 2) Direct the City Manager to apply the principles noted under the Policy Issues section of this Agenda Item Summary to promote simplification of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Codeover time and to provide an annual review of the Code. Ms. Nathanson stressed that the annual review should be for the benefit of the public. She expressed hope that when a work session was scheduled it would be to discuss how to get it off the ground so that staff could begin working on it and not to discuss individual sections of the code and how they should be modified. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session